“GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that a video showing conservative activists obtaining New Hampshire primary ballots in the names of dead people indicates that President Obama’s Justice Department isn’t doing enough to protect the integrity of the voting process. ‘How can the Obama Justice Department call itself a Department of Justice when it will allow a system to continue that enables election fraud?’ Gingrich said. ‘Voter ID is a measure we must have in all 50 states to make sure our elections don’t lose their integrity… If you can’t prove who you are, an impostor can vote for you, a non-citizen can vote for you and someone can watch the obituary pages and go vote for all our deceased citizens,’ Gingrich told TheDC. ‘When election fraud occurs we cheat honest voters,’ he added.”

Which is why the left is so angry about O’Keefe exposing it. Check out this breathless report from Talking Points Memo:

“…Election law experts tell TPM that O’Keefe’s allies could face criminal charges on both the federal and state level for procuring ballots under false names, and that his undercover sting doesn’t demonstrate a need for voter ID laws at all. Federal law bans not only the casting of, but the ‘procurement’ of ballots ‘that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.’ Hamline University law professor David Schultz told TPM that there’s ‘no doubt’ that O’Keefe’s accomplices violated the law.”
In sum: “Voter fraud doesn’t exist. Arrest James O’Keefe for voter fraud!” Keep those fingers crossed, lefties.

Not all Democrats are corrupt, of course, as TheDC’s Christopher Bedford reports:

“Video footage of undercover reporters obtaining New Hampshire primary ballots intended for people who have died may appear shocking, but it is no surprise to Artur Davis, a former Democratic congressman and vocal advocate against voter ID fraud. The way to prevent this kind of fraud, he told The Daily Caller, is simple: Require identification at the polls… ‘Voter fraud is common in many jurisdictions,’ David told TheDC. ‘I’m struck by the people who forcibly argue there’s no such thing, that it never happens. Many jurisdictions are slow to purge their rolls, so people who have been dead for a number of years can still be on those rolls, and people who have died more recently are certainly on them.’ A law requiring voters to present ID, he continued, ‘is just one more step in the transparency process… You can’t cash a check, enter a lot of private buildings in Washington, D.C. and New York City without one. It’s just not a serious impediment in peoples’ lives.'”

Unless, of course, they’re people who can’t win elections without voter fraud. Then it becomes a very serious impediment indeed.

“Reacting to two reports of voter fraud in two early primary states, state legislators say South Carolina’s new voter ID law would prevent voters from getting ballots under the names of dead people… In South Carolina, the state DMV director said Wednesday that records show 900 dead people may have voted in past elections. ‘Absolutely,’ Republican state Sen. Kevin Bryant told The Daily Caller, when asked whether South Carolina’s law would prevent such examples of fraud. ‘I guess New Hampshire doesn’t have a voter ID law, or they wouldn’t be able to do that.’ The bill, passed last May and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley, would require voters to show state-issued photo identification. The Department of Justice blocked the law in December, saying a disproportionate number of minorities do not have photo IDs, but state Attorney General Alan Wilson promised Tuesday to challenge that decision.”

If you don’t think 900 votes can make a difference, remember that the 2000 presidential election was decided by 537 votes in Florida. (And yes, President of the Environment Al Gore: it was decided.) Why does the Justice Department want to make sure dead people keep voting? Hmmmmm.

“The texts of Barack Obama’s recent speeches seem tailor-made for softening the White House’s often hostile description of American business, but the president’s impromptu additions are highlighting his efforts to subordinate business to government. At a Jan. 11 event in the White House where Obama’s published speech praised businesses for hiring American workers, for example, he departed from his prepared script to toughen his demands for business to cooperate with his political goals.”

“Even a Yale Law School professor is questioning President Barack Obama’s claim of a legal justification for unilaterally installing Richard Cordray as head of the new finance-sector regulatory bureau. Obama’s staff say the appointment was based on advice from White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, not from the Department of Justice. But this reliance on Obama’s in-house lawyer marks a ‘bitter shift’ that is reducing the advisory role of the Justice Department’s confirmed appointees, and increasing the role of Obama’s in-house legal counsel, said Bruce Ackerman, a professor at Yale Law, which conservatives have long decried as a hotbed of partisan legal activists… ‘All thoughtful people, Democrat and Republican alike, should insist that Ms. Ruemmler publish her opinion without delay,’ wrote Ackerman. However, White House spokesman Jay Carney has declined to release or even describe Ruemmler’s legal argument, even though few Democratic politicians or academics have defended the administration’s legal claim.”

They don’t have to, do they? That’s the great thing about being a Democrat: rules and laws are for the other guy.

“Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaking in New Hampshire this morning, reminded her audience of the tragic Tucson shooting last year — and also insinuated that the Tea Party, which she said regards political opponents as ‘the enemy,’ has enhanced divisiveness in Congress and had something to do with the shooting, at least indirectly. ‘We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords — who is doing really well, by the way, — [was shot],’ Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a ‘Politics and Eggs’ forum this morning. ‘The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.'”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz calls herself your friend, Rep. Giffords, but this is all you are to her: a convenient excuse to demonize people who dare to disagree with her. Never mind that Jared Lee Loughner wasn’t motivated by politics, and let’s just ignore all the Occupy movement’s crimes and seething invective since then. Details, details.

“An infant’s cries rang through the Occupy DC encampment in McPherson Square Wednesday morning, and when a group went to investigate they found only a baby girl alone in a tent, wearing a onesie and mittens. Soon after, authorities said, a man had been arrested and the girl — who was unharmed — was in the city’s care… D.C. Fire/EMS workers checked on the girl around 10:30 a.m. She was fine, according to Sgt. David Schlosser, a U.S. Park Police spokesman, and is now with the District’s child protective services department. About 30 minutes later, Schlosser said, a man returned to the encampment and identified himself as the baby’s father. Police arrested the man, charging him with attempted second-degree cruelty to children. ‘Mid 40s, rainy, onesie, alone,’ Schlosser said, describing the circumstances that led police to arrest the man.”

These are the people from whom we’re expected to take moral instruction. Oh, but he’s not an actual Occupier, right? All of the crimes in and around Occupy camps are committed by outsiders and infiltrators, right? (Google “No True Scotsman,” then replace “Scotsman” with “Occupier.” Congratulations, you’re now a rape apologist.)